The following actions have been completed prior to the summer holidays:

MEMO 1(2) KDo 21.8.2012 KAUPALLISET YMPÄRISTÖLUOKITUS WORKGROUP PROGRESS 1 Progress in the first half of 2012 The following actions have been completed prior to the summer holidays: 1.1 Kick-off (27.01.2012) The first action was to participate in a kick-off meeting in January to discuss the aims of the work group for 2012 and beyond In attendance were Pasi Tolppanen, Timo Rintala and Ken Dooley The aims of the workgroup were published in the document entitled Kaupalliset Ympäristöluokitus Workplan which may be seen in appendix 1 of this document 1.2 BREEAM NOR Meeting (29.03.2012) In March the Nordic GBC s participated in a video conference to discuss collaboration in the adaptation of BREEAM for the Nordic countries In attendance from Finland were Ken Dooley and Timo Rintala (part.) The minutes for this meeting may be seen in appendix 2 of this document 1.3 LEED Regional Priority Credits (6.4.2012) The USGBC gave the FiGBC the opportunity to choose the LEED design and construction regional priority credits that are best suited to Finland. The members of the kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus workgroup were asked their opinions as to which were best suited to Finland and the results were sent to the USGBC. The final report of this work may be seen in appendix 3 of this document 1.4 First workgroup meeting 23.4.2012 The purpose of the first workgroup meeting was to introduce all members of the workgroup and to receive feedback from them as to what they viewed as important with regard to the kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus tasks. The proposed workplan was also presented to the workgroup In attendance were Tiina Huovinen, Pertti Kalsson, Markku Lappalainen, Tuomo Lindstedt, Ken Dooley, Timo Rintala, The minutes for this meeting may be seen in appendix 4 of this document 1.5 Second workgroup meeting 6.6.2012 The purpose of the second workgroup meeting was to review the BREEAM Europe credit and suggest changes to best suit the Finnish construction industry. Not all credits were reviewed and this must be continued in the next meeting.

2(2) In attendance were Tiina Huovinen, Daniela Grotenfelt, Martti Rautee, Kari hiltunen, Ken Dooley, Timo Rintala. The work in progress report of this work may be seen in appendix 5 of this document 2 Anticipated progress in the second half of 2012 The following future meetings have already been agreed with the members of the workgroup: 28.9.2012 9:00 17.10.2012 13:00 4.12.2012 13:00

WORKGROUP PLAN 1(6) KDo 10.2.2012 KAUPALLISET YMPÄRISTÖLUOKITUS WORKGROUP Time [27.01.2012, klo 10.00-11.30] Place [Pöyrytalo, Jaakonkatu 2, Vantaa] Present Pasi Tolppanen Pöyry Timo Rintala Green Building Partners Ken Dooley Insinööritoimisto Olof Granlund 1 Primary purpose The primary purpose of the workgroup shall be to: Increase the general understanding of environmental assessment methods Provide neutral information regarding the use, benefits and potential of the systems Coordinate localisation of global environmental classification in Finland Provide support and material to ease and harmonise consultation in Finland Provide a workgroup to communicate and cooperate on global scale on commercial classification issues 2 Workgroup It was decided that the work required to be done in 2012 and onwards would be included within the following 3 categories: Assessment system development and localization (technical) Guidance documents creation (technical) General knowledge gathering (non-technical) Members shall be chosen from the people who have requested to join the work group. The work group chairs shall also suggest additional people to join the work group. 3 Workgroup tasks A large number of tasks have been defined as required to assist the growth of these commercial assessment (kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus) systems in Finland. 3.1.1 Assessment system development and localization The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 1.

2(6) 3.1.2 Guidance documents creation The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 2. 3.1.3 General knowledge gathering The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 3. 4 Workgroup tasks in detail Of the tasks shown in the appendices, 3 have been selected as most urgent to assist growth in this sector. Once these workgroups have been completed other tasks shall be developed in the future. 4.1 Workgroup task 1: BREEAM new buildings development workgroup The first task for the work group shall be to assist the development of BREEAM new buildings. It is important that this work is done first as in March to May 2012 there will be an opportunity to comment on BREEAM 2012 which will be launched in the summer. Number of members: approximately 10 people Breakdown of members: 5 BREEAM experts and 5 general construction sector Workgroup task aims: The BRE have suggested that the following tasks are the simplest method to enable easier certification of BREEAM projects in Finland. These tasks shall be done unless FiGBC decides to develop BREEAM Finland: o Comment on new version of BREEAM Europe 2012 by developing the Country Specific Reference Sheet for Finland. Work with BREEAM to adapt the credits for Finnish climate and culture BRE have suggested this o Development of BREEAM checklist A10. Work with the BRE for the approval of local Finnish standards BRE have suggested this 4.2 Work group task 2: LEED new buildings development workgroup Potential chairman: Timo Rintala or Ken Dooley Number of members: approximately 10 people Breakdown of members: 5 LEED experts and 5 general construction sector Workgroup task aims: Develop LEED alternative compliance paths for specific credits Begin and upkeep an ACP database ACPs should focus on poorly functional credits (Cooling towers, Water etc.) ACPs should also focus on European Union standards, guidelines and laws 4.3 Workgroup task 3: General tasks As the BREEAM and LEED tasks are being completed the work group will continuously work on general tasks Number of members: approximately 10 people Breakdown of members: general construction sector people

3(6) Workgroup task aims: To write the scope, review and comment on the report written by an independent body that shall increase general understanding of the commercial assessment systems To define commercial assessment systems training requirements for the FiGBC training committee to organize o It is assumed that all LEED and BREEAM training shall be outsourced to certified USGBC and BRE training companies Define the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders for commercial assessment system projects. Tasks may include: o Standardise classification service & task o Who is responsible for project management of the LEED credits? o Who is responsible for translation? o Should the consultant provide template reports for all credits? o Who should fill out the online forms? o Who is responsible for contractors credits? o A typical tarjouspyyntö responsibilities list for each type of project Investigate co-operation of the kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus workgroup with Värkki project where possible 5 Increase general understanding brochure An important aim for 2012 shall be to write a report that shall increase general understanding of the commercial assessment (kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus) systems. The document shall be aimed at all construction stakeholders and shall simply explain the relevant systems such as LEED, BREEAM and Promise. The document should be written by an independent group of people and should not be the opinion of invested stakeholders such as consultants or contractors. It should also echo the sentiment of the FiGBC which is that all systems are supported. It should be evaluated who is best suited to write this document and if an organization outside the FiGBC is required. A key aspect of this work is the funding which may be required to pay for the completion of this task. Orgainsations such as the Aalto Real Estate Business unit may already have this material. The final document shall be to review and commented on by one of the General Tasks workgroup. 6 Further Steps Other items mentioned in the meeting that shall occur in 2012 but require further planning are: the organisation of a general meeting(s) where all FiGBC members are invited to hear about progress made and to provide feedback gain feedback from Antti Lippo regarding the members questionnaire Kenneth Dooley

4(6) Appendix 1: Assessment system development and localization Co-operation with Värkki project where possible LEED new buildings development workgroup o ACP database o ACPs should focus on poorly functional credits (Cooling towers, Water etc.) o ACPs should also focus on European Union standards, guidelines and laws LEED EBOM o ACP database o Alternative standards for credits (cleaning detergents etc.) LEED USGBC round table co-operation BREEAM new buildings development workgroup o Comment on new version of BREEAM Europe 2012 for Finland / Nordic countries o Development of BREEAM checklist A10 BREEAM co-operation among Nordic countries BREEAM In-use Europe co-operation & co-ordination o In particular benchmarking for BREEAM in use energy credits so that credits awarded are similar to the UK level BREEAM for residential development Promise rebirth o Development of simple classification system for non-commercial projects o Is there interest & demand? o Easy way, promise redevelopment & systematic documentation o Residential, schools etc. o 3rd party certification should be implemented

5(6) Appendix 2: Guidance documents creation List of guidance documents to be added as required such as: o VOC paints and materials for LEED compliance o Contractors credits guidance for commercial assessment system projects o etc

6(6) Appendix 3: General knowledge gathering Sales and marketing material to promote commercial assessment system projects o Brochures for projects in Finland o The business case behind these systems As mentioned by Ilari it would be good to have some financial figures such as LEED gold costs an extra x/m2 and increase sales value by x/m2 and rental value by x/m2 etc To write the scope, review and comment on the report written by an independent body that shall increase general understanding of the commercial assessment systems To define commercial assessment systems training requirements for the FiGBC training committee to organize o It is assumed that all LEED and BREEAM training shall be outsourced to certified USGBC and BRE training companies Define the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders for commercial assessment system projects. Tasks may include:

MINUTES 1(3) KDo 30.3.2012 BREEAM NOR Video Conference Time [29.03.2012, klo 12.00-14.00] Present Sverre Tiltnes NGBC Anders Nohre-Walldèn NGBC Sigríður Björk Jónsdóttir IGBC Kristveig Sigurðardóttir IGBC Helga Jóhanna Bjarnadóttir IGBC Ken Dooley FiGBC Timo Rintala (part) FiGBC Bengt Wånggren (part) SGBC 1 Primary purpose The primary purpose of the meeting was: for the NGBC to explain the process of adaptation of BREEAM NOR for FiGBC and IGBC to discuss how could they could potentially simplify the adaptation process by taking advantage of the work already done by the NGBC and SGBC 2 BREEAM NOR Sverre explained in his presentation the quality assurance process and costs of the BREEAM NOR system. This presentation may be seen in appendix 1 of these minutes (to be forwarded at a later date). The most interesting items are as follows: NGBC have 4 staff who will be operating the BREEAM NOR system and the research organization SINTEF may assist in the running of the system. The NGBC will be responsible for: o Project registration details will be passed by NGBC to BRE Global. o Administration of the system. o Technical queries at present 4 people will act as consultants to the NGBC to answer the technical queries. These 4 people are the authors of BREEAM NOR. o Auditing the assessor reports. o Presenting the final certificate. o Training.

2(3) All evidence (drawings, design documents etc.) may be in Norwegian language but the assessor reports shall be in English language so they can be audited by the BRE. The cost of auditing will be paid by the NGBC not by the projects. The frequency of auditing assessor reports will depend upon the quality of each assessor. BRE Global will audit the evidence of a small number of projects and the costs of this will be paid by the NGBC not by the projects. The BREEAM NOR system will be supported by Accredited Professionals and Assessors but it was not clear of the scope of each person within projects. The University of Trondheim have developed a large number of methodologies for the system. YIT, Skanska and NCC have been heavily involved in the development of the system. The fees paid to the NGBC to certify a building are approximately 50 000 NOK ( 6 600) for NGBC members The NGBC will pay an annual licence fee of 600 000 NOK ( 80 000) to BRE Global for the use of BREEAM NOR. The number of BREEAM project registrations in Norway have increased dramatically since BREEAM NOR has been launched. 3 BREEAM Nordic and GBC Collaboration It is expected in the medium to long term that the Norwegian and Swedish versions of BREEAM will be merged into BREEAM Nordic which shall also include the requirements of the other Nordic countries. The funding organization, Nordic Innovation, have expressed an interest in providing funding for Nordic collaboration on building certification issues. There is already collaboration between the national scheme operators, for example NGBC are developing BREEAM Hotels and this will be used by the Swedish and the Dutch. This strategy will also be used for education, residential, swimming pools, data centers, and area (city) development. 4 Adaptation by Finland and Iceland Ken Dooley explained that the FiGBC have not yet begun the BREEAM adaption process as the FiGBC wishes to outsource the daily operation of the scheme. Previously BRE Global has not been willing to offer BREEAM Finland unless it was operated in Finland. However, at the 2012 Nordic Green Building Council Conference it was agreed with BRE Global that the daily operation of the BREEAM Finland and / or BREEAM Iceland could be outsourced to NGBC, SGBC or to BRE Global. The preferred method of adaptation by the FiGBC and IGBC would be to adapt BREEAM NOR or BREEAM Sweden instead of BREEAM International. The NGBC have made BREEAM NOR available to the FiGBC and IGCB to use for adaptation and have asked to be kept informed on the process. It is expected that once

3(3) BREEAM Sweden is finally approved that it will also be made available to the FiGBC and IGCB. The NGBC and SGBC did not comment on the possibility of taking over the daily operation of BREEAM Finland or BREEAM Iceland. The IGBC have received a grant from the Icelandic government of about 45 000 NOK to investigate building certification issues. 5 Next steps Sverre will send the presentation slides and business plan of the NGBC (in Norwegian) to the FiGBC and IGBC and Sigríður will collect opinions on future ways of Nordic collaboration. The FiGBC shall offer opinions to Sigríður about future collaboration to develop a scheme using the Norwegian and Swedish versions. Ken Dooley

MEMO 1(2) FiGBC Commercial classification Workgroup The Finnish Regional Priority Credits Date 6.4.2012 Author Timo Rintala, Green Building Partners Oy On behalf of Finnish Green Building Counsil 1 Background The original possibility to prepare the national Regional Priority credits ( RP s) came in January 2012. However, while the FiGBC workgroups were at January still very much under development, the Finnish group actually begun working only two weeks before the deadline. The Finnish group got also a good model from the Swedish GBC credit paper and, while Norway will be using Swedish credits, it was considered to be used as Finnish RP s. Based on preliminary voting, it was however quite clear that a dedicated Finnish credits should be used instead of Nordic. The Finnish credits are developed based on internet voting for the most suitable credits for the Finnish climate and practices. Two basic principles were recognized for suitable credits identification: - Highlighting credits that recognized to be most important in the Finnish environment - Highlighting credits that are not well recognized in typical Finnish construction and should be given more importance to drive the industry forward Based on voting among the Finnish task force included all members. Voting time was quite short, about one week. 2 The Finnish RP s Based on task group opinion and voting, the following is suggested for the Finnish RP s: - SS 5.1 Protect & restore habitat - SS 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity control - EA 1 Energy efficiency, 20 % savings - EA 1 Energy efficiency, 28 % savings - EA 2 On-site renewable energy, 1 % of renewables - IEQ 8.1 Daylight & views, Daylight Selected credits are mostly based to present issues, that are not normally considered in Finland and the selection would like to give them a bigger weight in decision making. Short reasoning for the selected credits is as follows:

2(2) SS 5.1 SS 6.1 EA 1 EA 2 IEQ 8.1 Protect & restore habitat While in Finland the construction is more and more urban and urban area is built more and more densely, the amount of open space is diminishing. In general the inbuilt natural area is protected in zoning, but the urban area is more and more built without vegetation. Also the Finnish construction practice is giving low value to protecting existing vegetation, while this could be saved in considerably higher amounts then today. So the amount of even small vegetated area in urban texture is with growing in value and should be encouraged. Stormwater Design, Quantity control The importance of stormwater management is growing and is by normal practice considered in Finnish zoning. However, the amount of non-pervious surfaces is growing fast and the amount of stormwater in municipal networks is higher than before. Also climate change has and will have effect on peak water amounts and more and more consideration should be given to the issue. While stormwater quantity control is not typically considered in construction projects, this will have a cost effect in the project and should be awarded. Energy efficiency, 20 % savings & Energy efficiency, 28 % savings Energy efficiency has a major role in governmental regulations and in green buildings in Finland. Up to day the Finnish regulations have been heat load and heating consumption focused based on the cold climate. In meantime, considerations with electricity use have been considerably lower. The importance of electricity use is raised in forthcoming regulations. LEED & ASHRAE energy calculation systematic, however, is based on costs. Cost also raises the importance of electricity use. The Finnish basic heat source in commercial buildings is energy efficient co-operation based district heating. Therefore using typical energy sources, district heat, more efficiently should be the basic solutions in new buildings. The current best practice commercial solutions in district heat connected buildings) in Finland lead to 20-25 % savings compared to ASHRAE minimum level, the first credit should be above this award improvements in controls and design. On-site renewable energy, 1 % of renewables The price of district heating and electricity is still lower then Europe average in Finland. Based on low electricity price the financial profitability of on-site energy solutions is low. Based on financial payback calculations, on-site solar power payback time is above 50 years and solar heat above 20 years. Currently the solar systems have had more brand value then real financial benefits. Thus the built up for on-site renewable of 1 % should be awarded more the one credit. Daylight & views, Daylight The typical commercial solutions in Finland have been to optimize the total amount of outer walls and this lead to deep frame solutions. The amount of daylight has also positive effect on electricity use based on lighting controls. Thus, the importance of daylight design should be highlighted.

Muistio Sivu 1 / 4 Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset työryhmä 23.4.2012 Kokousmuistio Läsnäolijat Jakelu Tiina Huovinen, Sponda Pertti Kalsson, NCC Markku Lappalainen, Rakennustieto Tuomo Lindstedt, HTJ Ken Dooley, Granlund Timo Rintala (siht.), Green Building Partners Läsnäolijat Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset -työryhmän jäsenet Antti Lippo Pasi Tolppanen 1 JÄRJESTÄYTYMINEN Todettiin läsnäolijat ja suoritettiin esittäytyminen. Todettiin, että uskottavan päätöksenteon pohjaksi vaadittaisiin osallistujia kaikista sidosryhmistä mukaan lukien omistajat, urakoitsijat, rakennuttajat, kiinteistökehitys, suunnittelijat ja konsultit. FiGBC:n taholta hankkeeseen nimetty kaksoisjohtajuus, Timo Rintala ja Ken Dooley. Läsnä ja peruslähtökohdat ja tavoitteet työryhmään. Huovinen, Sponda ympäristöpäällikkö. Spondalla periaatepäätös kansainvälisen ympäristöluokituksen käytöstä kaikissa hankkeissa, perusteena kansainvälinen markkinat. Tehty useita olemassa olevien ja rakennusvaiheen hankkeita. Lappalainen, Rakennustieto, päätehtävän RT-kortiston päätoimittajan tehtävät. Toimii pääosin rakennusmääräysten maailmassa, kiinnostus alan kehitykseen. Lindstedt, rakennuttajakonsultti ja konsultti. Vastaa yrityksessä luokituksista ja energiatehokkuudesta. Kiinnostus menettelyjen ja mallien kehittämiseen. Karlsson, NCC kiinteistökehitys. NCC:lle tullut Ruotsista BREEAM velvoite kaikkiin hankkeisiin. Pääosin omaperustaista tuotantoa. Kiinnostus Suomalaisten menettelyjen ja sovellusten kehittämiseen. Dooley, ympäristöpäällikkö Granlundilla. Vastuuna sustainability + energy sekä erityistuotteet. Kiinnostus erityisesti BREEAM mallien kehitykseen sekä tarjous- ja sopimusmallien yhtenäistämiseen. Rintala, Omistaja Green Building Partners Oy:ssä. Elinkaarikonsultointi. Kiinnostus kansallisten menettelyjen kehitykseen molemmissa työkaluissa. Ollut mukana LEED round table työskentelyssä.

Muistio Sivu 2 / 4 2 KAUPALLISET YMPÄRISTÖLUOKITUKSEN WORKPLAN Käytiin läpi kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset workplan. Rintala esitteli sisällön ja keskusteltiin tehtävien sisällöistä. Tehtyyn työsuunnitelmaan tai sen tavoitteisiin ei tullut korjauksia. Workplan liitteenä. 3 BREEAM TILANNE Ken Dooley esittely BREEAM tilanteen (kalvot liitteenä) BREEAM muuttanut kantaansa kansallisten menettelyjen kehittämiseen. Enää ei vaadita täyttä kansallista lokalisointia tyyliin Ruotsi/norja, vaan BREEAM tarjoaa No/low-Cost BREEAM lokalisoinnin. Perusteena kevyelle lokalisoinnille ovat: Country specific reference sheets Mahdollisuus pieniin arviointiperusteiden korjauksiin Mahdollisuus yksittäisten pisteiden muutoksiin tai poistamiseen Suomen arvioinneista Mahdollisuus A10 helpompaan kehitykseen Todistustaakka kevyempi, kun A10 päivitykset tulevat yleiseltä organisaatiolta, ei yksittäisiltä konsulteilta BREEAM Finland tilanne FiGBC ei halua tehdä omaa organisaatiota, jonka vastuulla olisi kansallisen järjestelmän ylläpito FiGBC ei halua rahoittaa kehitystä kotimaisen mallin kehittämiseksi Syynä korkea alkukustannus sekä nykyisiin markkinoihin suhteitettuna suuri vuotuinen peruskustannus Suomelle annettu mahdollisuus käyttää Ruotsi/Norja versiota Mahdollisuus tehdä hiukan muutettu FIN versio, jossa huomioitaisiin kotimaisia kohtia Suomessa mahdollisuus käyttää NOR / SWE versioita kriteeriperusteina BRE suuntaan eli hakea pistettä perustuen muiden pohjoismaiden Ruotsi ja Norja eivät erityisen innostuneita toimimaan myös Suomalaisten luokitusten arvioivana tahona Kehysorganisaation merkitys suuri BRE:n suuntaan, vaaditaan kattavaa ja edustavaa työryhmää ja päättäjää. Muita BREEAM järjestelmään liittyviä esille tulleita asioita Tarkennukset kriteerien Brittiläisten standardien ja vaatimusten eroista Suomalaisiin menettelyihin, tulkintaohjeet tiettyihin kriteereihin kansalliseen käytäntöön tarvittaisiin Hakemusta tehtäessä olisi hyvä tiedostaa, mitkä Suomalaiset osana normaalia suunnitteluprosessia tulevat dokumentit suoraan täyttävät hakemuksen vaatimukset BREEAM 2012 International julkaistaan noin 3-4 kuukaudessa. BREEAM kehitysryhmän lyhyen aikavälin tähtäimet - Country specific reference sheets - Checklist A10 kehitytyö

Muistio Sivu 3 / 4 Vaaditaan käytännössä yksi tekninen palaveri, jossa voitaisiin määrittää pisteet, joihin Suomessa haluttaisiin muutoksia ja päivityksiä. 4 LEED TILANNE Ajanpuutteen vuoksi LEED asiat käsiteltiin kevyesti. LEED Regional Priority Credits lähetetty eteenpäin USGBC:lle. Ei palautetta kriteereistä. Pitäisi alustavan aikataulun mukaan tulla voimaan toukokuussa 2012. Aineisto liitteenä. LEED kehitysryhmän lyhyen aikavälin tähtäimet - Alternative Compliance Path eli ACP:t Suomalaisille menettelyille, perustuen LEED 2012 luonnoksen pisteisiin - Mahdolliset Suomalaiset pilot credit pisteet (esim. kaukokylmä) Vaaditaan käytännössä yksi tekninen palaveri, jossa voitaisiin määrittää pisteet, joihin Suomessa haluttaisiin muutoksia ja päivityksiä. Suhteessa BREEAM vaatimuksiin esitettävät 5 YLEISDOKUMENTAATION TILANNE 6 MUUT ASIAT Yleisten dokumentaatioiden tarpeellisuudesta oltiin yksimielisiä. Käytännön keskustelua käytiin tarvittavista resursseista dokumenttien laatimiselle. Käytännön mahdollisuutena on keskusteltu yliopistomaailman mukaan tuomista, jolloin laajempaa yleisdokumentaatiota voitaisiin toteuttaa esimerkiksi diplomitöiden yhteydessä. Keskusteltiin luokitusten perusteluista. Käytännössä luokitusten perusteet usein brändiarvo tai laadullisen ohjauksen varmennus. Suomessa ei aineistoa, jolla voitaisiin suoraan osoittaa rahallisia säästöjä, kuten energiatehokkuuden parantamisessa. Käytännön hyvät ja tiiviit esimerkit vaatisivat kuitenkin osoittamisen Business casen kautta: prosessi, hyödyt, kaupallinen realiteetti, muut saavutettavat höydyt. Suunnitellun mukainen standardisoitu työsisältö tarjouspyyntöjen pohjaksi nähtiin erittäin tarpeellisena ja kannatettavana. Yleisdokumentaation lähiajan toimenpiteet: Yhteyksien avaaminen yliopistomaailmaan, esim. rakentamistalous Standardisoidun työsisällön kehitystyön aloittaminen Promise kehitys. Lappalainen esitti omana käsityksenään, ettei Promise kehitykselle ole tällä hetkellä olemassa suunnitelmia. vaikuttaa siltä, ettei kehitykselle ole suoraan olemassa mitään tilausta tai painetta käyttäjäkunnasta. Asiaan liittyvinä lähiaikoina tulevat uudet energiatodistukset (luonnokset ja kommenttipyynnöt julkaistu). Määräyksistä lähivuosina tulossa korjausrakentamisen ohjeet ja vaatimukset (ympäristöministeriö). 7 JATKOTOIMENPITEET Seuraava kokous 6.6.2012 klo 14:00 Granlundin tiloissa Malmilla.

Muistio Sivu 4 / 4 Timo Rintala Green Building Partners Oy FiGBC Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset -ryhmä

FiGBC BREEAM Comments Management Comments Man 1 Commissioning Credit 2 is difficult as it uses Europeans standards but we have no Finnish replacement. So no change is proposed Man 2 Considerate Constructors ok Man 3 Construction Site Impacts- new build ok Man 4 Building user guide ok Man 12 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ok Health & Wellbeing Hea 1 Daylighting ok Hea 2 View Out ok Hea 3 Glare Control ok Hea 4 High frequency lighting ok Hea 5 Internal and external lighting levels ok Hea 6 Lighting zones & controls ok Hea 7 Potential for natural ventilation Hea 8 Indoor air quality Distances of exhaust air are more onerous than current Finnish design practices Hea 9 Volatile Organic Compounds Difficult but Finnish guide M1 which is the industry standard may be out of date and should be developed further or the EN standards should become best practice in Finland Hea 10 Thermal comfort? Should sisäilmasto be a compromise - similar requirements but sisäilmasto allows a number of hours of the year where the requirements do not apply Hea 11 Thermal zoning ok Hea 12 Microbial contamination Difficult but no Finnish guideline / standard to offer as an alternative Hea 13 Acoustic Performance Change requirements for open plan spaces to be same for single occupancy offices as 40-50 is against Finnish best practice Hea 14 Office Space Energy Ene 1 Energy Efficiency Timo to suggest a update for E luku Ene 2 Sub-metering of Substantial Energy Uses ok Ene 3 Sub-metering of High Energy Load and Tenancy areas ok Ene 4 External Lighting ok Ene 5 Low zero carbon technologies Ene 6 Building fabric performance and avoidance of air infiltration

Ene 7 Ene 8 Ene 9 Cold Storage Lifts Escalators & travelling walkways Transport Tra 1 Provision of public transport Tra 2 Proximity to amenities Tra 3 Alternative modes of Transport Tra 4 Pedestrian and cycle safety Alternative option to raising road to level of path for pedestrian crossings - replace them with speed bumps Tra 5 Travel plan Tra 7 Travel information point Tra 8 Deliveries & Manoeuvring Water Wat 1 Water Consumption ok Wat 2 Water meter It is a concern that water meters are required in service areas such as storage, delivery and waste. Water meters should not be required in cases where these areas are responsible for less than 2% of building water demand Wat 3 Major leak detection ok Wat 4 Sanitary supply shut off ok Wat 6 Irrigation Systems ok Wat 7 Vehicle Wash ok Wat 8 Sustainable on-site water treatment Are there simpler alternative ways to earn this credit Materials Mat 1 Materials Specification (major building elements) ok Mat 2 Hard landscaping and boundary protection ok Mat 3 Re-use of building façade Alternative compliance building elements should not have to come from just the site. Should Mat 4 Re-use of building structure be able to come from an older building - concrete elements from a 70s building - windows - reused materials - we have a large amount of 70s building stock being demolished Waste Mat 5 Responsible sourcing of materials Is there an approved Mat 6 Insulation Credit 2 is difficult as the only compliant products are sold by Kingspan who dont sell to Finland Mat 7 Designing For Robustness ok

Wst 1 Wst 2 Wst 3 Wst 4 Wst 5 Construction Site Waste Management Recycled aggregates Recyclable waste storage Compactor / Baler Composting Land Use and Ecology LE1 Re-use of land LE2 Contaminated land LE3 Ecological value of site AND Protection of ecological features LE4 Mitigating Ecological Impact LE6 Long term impact on biodiversity Pollution Pol 1 Pol 2 Pol 3 Pol 4 Pol 5 Pol 6 Pol 7 Pol 8 Innovation Man 3 Hea 1 Hea 9 Hea 14 Ene 1 Ene 5 Tra 3 Wat 2 Mat 1 Mat 5 Wst 1 Pol 4 Refrigerant GWP - Building services Preventing refrigerant leaks Refrigerant GWP - Cold Storage NOx emissions from heating source Flood risk Minimising watercourse pollution Reduction of Night Time Light Pollution Noise Attenuation Construction Site Impacts Daylighting Volatile Organic Compounds Office Space Energy Efficiency Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) Technologies Alternative modes of Transport Water Meter Materials Specification Responsible Sourcing of Materials Construction Site Waste Management Nox Emissions of Heating Source Comments